SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sri. K.Murali, Advocate has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party – Manager, Kannattu Financiers, Mavelikkara. The contentions of the complainant are as follows:- Complainant has pledged gold ornament vide receipt No. 11486 on 27-12-2002 before the opposite party and availed a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. At the time of pledge, the opposite party had informed the complainant that the rate of interest will be 14% yearly and as such, the complainant had accepted the said amount. When contacted the opposite party to take back the item in the year 2003, the opposite party had demanded 36% interest for the pledged item. So the complainant returned without taking the items from the opposite party. On 29-09-2003, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party intimating that he is willing to take back the pledged item, after remitting a reasonable rate of interest and requested to intimate the details to him. But the opposite party had not sent any reply to the complainant. On 16-07-2004, the opposite party had sent a notice to the complainant directing to take the pledged item and intimated that it will be disposed of after 31-07-2004 by auction in case any default. This letter was silent with regard to the principal amount and the interest. The complainant sent a reply notice on 29-07-2004. But so far, the opposite party had not sent any details to the complainant and not released the pledged item after accepting a reasonable rate of interest. Hence this complaint seeking relief.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before this Forum and filed version. In the version, it is stated that the complainant had pledged the gold ornament with the opposite party and that the complainant had not approached the opposite party to take back the items from them. It is stated that they had not demanded exorbitant rate of interest from the complainant. It is further stated that, the opposite party had explained all the details of the terms and conditions of the pledge to the complainant at the time of depositing the item for pledge, together with the details of auction proceedings to be taken in case of default. It is stated that the complainant had taken a negligent view in taking back the pledged items from them, and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Compensation and relief.<br /> 4. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit along with documents in evidence – marked as Exts. A1 to A6. Exts. A1 and A2 are the postal receipts of the letter to the opposite party sent by the complainant and Ext. A3 is its acknowledgement Card. Ext. A4 is the letter dated 16-07-2004 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. It shows that since the complainant had not remitted any rate of interest or taken back the pledged items, the item will be sold in public auction on 30-07-2004. Ext. A5 is the reply letter to the opposite party on 27-07-2004 intimating the details together with the allegation of exorbitant rate of interest demanded (36%). Ext. A6 is the receipt No. 11486 dated 27-12-2002 for pledge item. On the side of the opposite party, they have produced 4 documents in evidence – Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. Ext. B1 is the terms and conditions of the pledge issued to the complainant. This document is silent with regard to the rate of interest. Ext. B2 is the terms and condition of the pledge. Ext B3 is the acknowledtement6 card. Ext. Ba4 is the urgent notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant in connection with the public auction on 09-12-2005 for the said pledged item. On a perusal of the above said documents, it can be seen that the opposite party has not stated the rate of interest charged. In the proof affidavit, the complainant has submitted that he could not taken back the pledged item from the opposite party due to the demand of exorbitant rate of interest. In the context, on a careful reading of the evidence produced by both parties, we are of the view that the complainant’s contentions are genuine and he has a prima facie case against the opposite party. The contentions put forward by the opposite party cannot be accepted as a valid ground for the denial of the release of the item. The action of the opposite party is highly illegal and arbitrary and unauthorized. The complainant is not liable to pay the exorbitant rate of interest in order to take back the gold item from the opposite party. He could not take back the same in time from the opposite party due the dispute of rate of interest charged. The delay of release of the item by the opposite party due to the dispute of rate of interest will amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. For the deficiency in service, the opposite party is awarable to the complainant. <br /> 5. In the result, considering the various aspects of this case and after the perusal of the document given in evidence by both parties and after a detailed study of the deposition of both parties, we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed. Hence we hereby direct the opposite party to release the pledged item to the complainant, after collecting only the rate of interest of 18% per annum up to the date of filing of this complaint (24-03-2006). The opposite party is not entitled to get any rate of interest after the filing of this complaint before this forum, by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not ordering any compensation or costs. We further direct the opposite party to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2008<br /> Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan<br /> Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah<br /> Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Evidence of the Complainant: -<br /> PW1 - Adv. K.Murali<br /> Ext. A1 29-07-2004 Postal receipt<br /> Ext. A2 29-09-2003 -do-<br /> Ext. A3 - Postal A/d card<br /> Ext. A4 16-07-2004 Notice from the opposite party<br /> Ext. A5 27-07-2004 Letter from the complainant<br /> Ext. A6 27-12-2002 Pawn ticket<br /> Evidence of the Opposite party: -<br /> RW1 - K.T. Thomas<br /> Ext. B1 27-12-2002 Terms and conditions of pledge, Kannattu Financiers<br /> Ext. B2 - Terms and conditions of the pledge<br /> Ext. B3 - Postal A/d card<br /> Ext. B4 24-11-2005 Urgent notice issued by the opposite party<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Opposite party/SF<br /> Typed by: Sh/-<br /> Compd by:<br />